Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?.Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!

The new coalition Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond has confirmed the Tories' manifesto pledge to slow the rise of fixed speed cameras.

The cabinet minister plans to stop public funding for new cameras, but Council run road safety partnerships would be allowed to fund future schemes with their own money - if they could justify their use. Hammond said that the partnerships would not be allowed to keep revenue from speeding fines and that any money raised would end up in central government's coffers.

On paper this all sounds good to those who oppose speed cameras, but the reality is that it's far likelier that we'll all have to put up with a lot more cameras under the new government.

Average speed cameras are set to become the new standard, mobiles aren't going anywhere soon and the satellite tracking 'Speed Spike' system which is currently on trial is set to boost the treasury's future fortunes.

Comments

Posted by DennisN on Sun May 16, 2010 8:23 pm

News Team Wrote:

Council run road safety partnerships would be allowed to fund future schemes with their own money - if they could justify their use. Hammond said that the partnerships would not be allowed to keep revenue from speeding fines and that any money raised would end up in central government's coffers.

Now there's a great idea for goverment funding - don't pay for cameras to be installed, but take all the money they earn!

Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

Posted by M8TJT on Sun May 16, 2010 9:27 pm

DennisN Wrote:

News Team Wrote:

Council run road safety partnerships would be allowed to fund future schemes with their own money - if they could justify their use. Hammond said that the partnerships would not be allowed to keep revenue from speeding fines and that any money raised would end up in central government's coffers.

Now there's a great idea for goverment funding - don't pay for cameras to be installed, but take all the money they earn!

Much better idea than the last lot's

Posted by M8TJT on Mon May 17, 2010 8:18 am

News Team Wrote:

The cabinet minister plans to stop public funding for new cameras, but Council run road safety partnerships would be allowed to fund future schemes with their own money - if they could justify their use. Hammond said that the partnerships would not be allowed to keep revenue from speeding fines and that any money raised would end up in central government's coffers.

I've had a think about this. How does this differ from the previous regime. Sounds just the same to me. Presumably the money will come from the central government grant for road safety, as it does at the moment.
Or is this the new lot using the same spin techniques as the last lot

Posted by Rowan29a on Tue May 18, 2010 10:22 am

Politicians - never believe a word they say especially those manifesto statements. Just look at the Capital Gains betrayal.

Mike -
TomTom 750 Live
iPhone 5 16GB, Kavaj "Dallas" case

Posted by M8TJT on Tue May 18, 2010 2:03 pm

But surely a little change of mind to compromise is a lot better than getting a Gvt. that nearly everyone in England voted against, and only got as many seats as the did because they changed the boundaries in their favour and include MPs from Scotland who seem to want an incompetent Gvt. and who want independence as long as UK central Gvt. keeps giving them handouts.

Posted by snailracer on Fri May 21, 2010 7:57 am

M8TJT Wrote:

But surely a little change of mind to compromise is a lot better than getting a Gvt. that nearly everyone in England voted against, and only got as many seats as the did because they changed the boundaries in their favour and include MPs from Scotland who seem to want an incompetent Gvt. and who want independence as long as UK central Gvt. keeps giving them handouts.

Keeping the Scots in the UK is a sensible policy, if they went independent they'd take a lot of North Sea oil reserves, refining facilities and pipelines with them. The cost of the "handouts" you mention needs to be offset against the direct revenues from North Sea oil, which presently DON'T go to the Scottish executive, but directly to UK government coffers. The status quo exists because everyone wins.

Posted by Chuffer4 on Fri May 21, 2010 10:20 am

Have I missed something here ?
If the government will not pay to install the cameras but take all the money they earn it is likely that the councils will not install more because it will be of no financial benefit to them.
Why would they pay to install and operate them and not make any money.
Unless of course they really wanted to make to roads safer !

Posted by CDK on Fri May 21, 2010 11:26 am

Well, that's a start I suppose - some councils were using the cameras as a easy source of funds under the guise of traffic safety.
Lets hope they also look at the tacticks of the bully boys of the private parking companies who are coining it....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although we hail from different lands,
we share one earth and sky and sun,
remember friends, the world is one....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by Andy_P on Sat May 22, 2010 1:35 am

M8TJT Wrote:

But surely a little change of mind to compromise is a lot better than getting a Gvt. that nearly everyone in England voted against

Err, which lot are you talking about?
According to the BBC, 10,706,647 voted Tory, 8,604,358 voted Labour and 6,827,938 voted LibDem. Hardly a landslide for or against ANY party.

And didn't all those LibDem voters vote that way to keep the Tories (and Labour) out?

"Settling in nicely" ;-)

Posted by M8TJT on Sat May 22, 2010 8:12 am

Andy_P Wrote:

M8TJT Wrote:

But surely a little change of mind to compromise is a lot better than getting a Gvt. that nearly everyone in England voted against

Err, which lot are you talking about?
According to the BBC, 10,706,647 voted Tory, 8,604,358 voted Labour and 6,827,938 voted LibDem. Hardly a landslide for or against ANY party.

And didn't all those LibDem voters vote that way to keep the Tories (and Labour) out?

I agree, but I was talking about ENGLAND not the UK. The vote in England was about a ratio of 2.6:1 against Labour. With about 25M votes total with about 7M for Labour. That's about 18M out of 25m that did not want a Lab govt, a damn good majority even if it's not 'nearly everyone'. This would have given 'Call me Dave' (without Scotland and Wales) an overall majority of 62. No, not a landslide but he would not have had to compromise with the LibDems.

Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?.Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!